The Evidence on Admissions: Why Elite Universities Are Reinstating the SAT and ACT

The great pandemic admissions experiment is coming to a close. Between 2020 and 2023, nearly every highly selective university in the United States dropped standardized testing requirements, citing the logistical impossibilities of administering the SAT and ACT during global lockdowns. At the time, many equity advocates celebrated the shift, hoping the removal of tests would permanently level the playing field for lower-income applicants.[1][2]

But as the pandemic receded, the tide decisively turned. Dartmouth College broke the Ivy League seal in early 2024, announcing a return to mandatory testing based on an exhaustive internal study. Within weeks, Yale, Brown, and finally Harvard followed suit, joining institutions like MIT and Georgetown that had already reinstated their requirements.[1][4]

The rapid reversal sparked immediate public debate, with critics accusing elite institutions of erecting old barriers to entry. However, the internal data driving these decisions tells a counterintuitive and highly empowering story for prospective students: standardized tests, when used correctly, are actually engines of equity.[6]

The foundation of this evidence pack rests on a landmark study by Opportunity Insights, a research group based at Harvard University. Economists Raj Chetty, David Deming, and John Friedman analyzed massive datasets from 'Ivy-Plus' colleges to determine exactly what metrics actually predict a student's ability to thrive on an elite campus.[3][5]

Their primary finding disrupted the prevailing narrative: standardized test scores are highly predictive of academic success in college, while high school grade point averages (GPAs) are virtually useless for distinguishing among elite applicants. A student with a perfect SAT score is significantly more likely to achieve a high college GPA than a student with an average score, regardless of their background.[3]

The culprit behind this divergence is rampant grade inflation. With the average high school GPA steadily climbing over the past decade, admissions officers found themselves staring at tens of thousands of transcripts boasting perfect or near-perfect grades. Without a standardized metric to validate those grades, the transcript lost its signaling power.[5]

When test scores were removed from the equation, admissions committees were forced to rely more heavily on other application components: personal essays, letters of recommendation, and extracurricular activities. This is where the equity trap snapped shut.[6]

Dartmouth’s internal researchers identified that these alternative criteria heavily favor affluent applicants. Wealthy students have access to private essay coaches, prestigious summer internships, and high-profile extracurriculars that polish an application to a high sheen. A standardized test, for all its flaws, is much harder to completely manufacture.

Furthermore, Dartmouth’s data revealed a tragic consequence of the test-optional era: lower-income students were actively withholding test scores that would have actually secured their admission, mistakenly believing their scores were not 'good enough' for the Ivy League.

Consider a student from an under-resourced high school who scores a 1400 on the SAT. Seeing that a university's median score is 1520, the student chooses not to submit it. But admissions officers read scores in context. A 1400 from a high school where the average score is 900 is a massive signal of academic exceptionalism. By withholding that score, the student inadvertently hid their greatest asset.[6]

MIT, which reinstated its requirement earlier, reported identical findings. Dean of Admissions Stuart Schmill noted that the university simply could not reliably predict which students from less-resourced backgrounds would survive MIT's grueling math and science core without the SAT or ACT. The test allowed MIT to confidently admit students from unknown high schools.[4]

The return to testing is not without its detractors. Organizations advocating for test-blind admissions, alongside administrators within the University of California system, argue that the tests themselves are fundamentally flawed and measure accumulated wealth rather than raw aptitude.[1][2]

These critics point to the undeniable correlation between family income and SAT scores. Wealthier families can afford expensive test-prep courses, multiple testing attempts, and private tutoring, all of which can artificially inflate scores by dozens of points.[3][6]

However, the data from Opportunity Insights suggests that while wealth correlates with higher scores, the scores themselves still accurately predict college grades. The solution, elite universities have concluded, is not to throw out the thermometer because it measures a cold room, but to read the temperature in context.[3][5]

The consensus emerging among elite private universities is that while the test is an imperfect tool, it is the least flawed metric available. By mandating the SAT or ACT but evaluating the scores through a strict socioeconomic lens, these institutions believe they can build more capable, diverse, and resilient incoming classes.[6]